Last week, after David Prosser announced he'll be retiring from the state Supreme Court at the end of July, I posted on Facebook and Twitter, "Shouldn't the next governor name Prosser's successor? Let the people decide!"

A snarky reference to the refusal of some GOP senators, including Wisconsin's Ron Johnson, to take up President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court, I was basically going for "cute," not "serious commentary." (Is that even possible on Facebook?)

It's received 20-plus likes, which is barely a tick; I can get more than that in 10 minutes if I post a photo of my dog lying on the couch. My liberal-leaning friends enjoyed it, my conservative-leaning pals, not so much, with one pointing out that the U.S. court appointment is for life and that it's not an election year for the governor of Wisconsin.

True enough, but I still think there's a serious point to be made here. Not that Walker should hold off making an appointment but that Senate Republicans who refuse to consider Garland are failing to do their duty. As many others have noted, the "people" elected Obama to a full term, not to whatever term GOP senators think he should serve.

The president did his job by nominating Garland to the seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia; I think the Senate should do its job by considering Garland and giving him an up-or-down vote.

But I also think this: The appointment processes in both cases — federal and state — is too political. On April 29, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ran an editorial asking Gov. Scott Walker to think a little more boldly and appoint a commission to come up with a slate of nominees from which the governor could choose, much like the Missouri plan used by a number of states.

Although it would buck a couple of hundred years of precedence, I think Obama could have done the same, and future presidents should. From what I've read, Garland would make a fine justice; better than many. But had Obama named a commission to give him several choices, the public might have been better served, and it might have lessened the political pushback from Republicans (OK, maybe not).

In Obama's case, there is a safeguard of sorts: The Senate must confirm or deny the appointment. Obama is not solely responsible for Scalia's successor; he shares that responsibility.

Walker doesn't have that cover. Walker doesn't have to rely on anyone for advice, let alone consent. Voters ultimately will confirm Walker's selection, but in the case of Prosser's replacement, not until 2020. And even if it were sooner, incumbency carries an awful lot of weight in the voting both.

The Journal Sentinel Editorial Board challenged Walker to think outside the usual political box. Too often in the past, Democrat and Republican governors have picked Supreme Court justices when vacancies occurred because of their political connections and loyalty.

And Wisconsin's primary method of filling court seats is just as rife with politics. Big money from partisan but unknown donors have resulted in recent elections for the state's highest court poisoned by name-calling and ugliness.

Yes, the election process has given the state some outstanding justices, such as the current and former chief justices, but it also has thrown up some clunkers who couldn't handle municipal court, let alone the Supreme Court.

Wisconsin deserves justices devoted to the law, not politics, as Prosser hinted at in his resignation letter to Walker. Walker could set an example and offer a less partisan way of selecting justices. That might even mitigate the governor's partisan reputation, something that he could point to with pride as his legacy (or in his next campaign).

The Missouri Plan isn't perfect, and maybe there are other plans out there that would work better. But it has the virtue of at least mitigating the weight of politics in the selection process. Walker should give it a chance.